Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Da Geezer]

Did Lankford have his endorsement? He generally avoids endorsing anyone when it looks like the MAGA guy is going to lose.

Case in point, Michael Guest of Mississippi won his runoff primary. Guest voted FOR the bi-partisan J6 Commission. MAGA was targeting him for elimination. I think Trump ended up not endorsing anyone because, again, the guy he probably wanted to endorse was looking like a loser.

Will Trump endorse in GOP midterm runoffs? - Mississippi Today

No. Trump didn't endorse anyone in that race.

[Dr. Strangelove]

What is the substance of that case?

Also, I think there is a case out of WV that may put limitations on bureaucrats promulgating rules (laws), executing those laws, and adjudicating those laws.

I bet every elected Congressman is pulling for the bureaucrats.

Alito and Thomas were on the losing side so I'm guessing you won't like the outcome.

The EPA and the "stay in Mexico" cases will be released tomorrow. Won't be today.

[Da Geezer]

Geezer, a few months ago you told me that Acting AG Rosen and all his deputies did NOT threaten to resign en masse on Jan. 3rd over Trump's trying to replace him with Jeffrey Clark. The mass resignation threat forced Trump to back down because it was obvious NO ONE would support Clark.

Now that Rosen, his deputies, and Pat Cippolone have apparently all testified under oath that this did in fact occur, and Trump refuses to testify, and Clark took the 5th 125+ times, are you willing to concede that maybe, okay, maybe it DID happen?

I don't remember saying "that Acting AG Rosen and all his deputies did NOT threaten to resign en masse on Jan. 3rd". But there are a whole lot of things that I don't remember. Do you have a link to what "Rosen, his deputies, and Pat Cipollone" actually testified to? I'm leery of the statement that they "apparently" testified to something. When Hillary took the 5th 75 times when asked about her violations of the Espionage Act, am I OK then to assume she was guilty.

Did Trump fire Rosen? I don't remember.

[THE_WIZARD_]

After the russian hoax bs Hitlary really needs to shut her fucking piehole about Jan6 and be happy she's not behind bars.

If Hunter's escapades were done by DJT Jr. Impeachment would have begun long ago.

The murderers are appalled by jaywalking.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I don't remember saying "that Acting AG Rosen and all his deputies did NOT threaten to resign en masse on Jan. 3rd". But there are a whole lot of things that I don't remember. Do you have a link to what "Rosen, his deputies, and Pat Cipollone" actually testified to? I'm leery of the statement that they "apparently" testified to something. When Hillary took the 5th 75 times when asked about her violations of the Espionage Act, am I OK then to assume she was guilty.

Did Trump fire Rosen? I don't remember.

Rosen, Donahue, and Engel already testified publicly that they confronted Trump on January 3rd and threatened him with mass resignation (themselves plus others not in the meeting) if he replaced Rosen with Jeffrey Clark. He wanted to do so because Clark had agreed to send out a letter to Georgia telling them that the DOJ had reason to believe mass fraud had occurred and Georgia should consider a new slate of Electors.

Rosen and the top DOJ staff had refused to send such a letter. Just like Barr had refused to send such a letter before him. The US Attorney in Atlanta was fired because he refused to publicly accuse the election of being fraudulent.

I believe there is written (not video) testimony from White House Counsel Pat Cippolone that this did in fact occur and that he and others in the WH Counsel office were also threatening to resign if Trump went ahead with this plan.

Confronted with all these people turning against his scheme, Trump backed down.

Jan. 6 committee hearing details Trump meeting where DOJ officials threatened mass resignations | Fox News

[Dr. Strangelove]

Geezer - Talent will explain it better I'm sure when he gets a chance but the 11th Amendment case looks like Roberts & Kavanaugh joined the liberals to carve out a new "war powers" exception to the Amendment. Bankruptcy may be the only pre-existing exception.

The specifics involve a State trooper in Texas who was in the Army Reserves. In 2007 he got called up and sent to Iraq and suffered serious lung injuries over there that left him unable to handle the physical duties of being a trooper anymore after he got back. He asked Texas to find him a new position and they refused. He sued in state court alleging they had violated federal law and Texas claimed sovereign immunity. Court sided with the trooper 5-4.

[Mike]

Alito and Thomas were on the losing side so I'm guessing you won't like the outcome.

The EPA and the "stay in Mexico" cases will be released tomorrow. Won't be today.

Shit. I was hoping for an EPA smack down.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Talent, if I read your post above you're looking at "trespassing" as a crime Turmp could be charged with?. David French presents an argument for conviction on other grounds:

To understand why (Trump is closer to criminal prosecution), we have to go back to 1969 and a seminal Supreme Court case called Brandenburg v. Ohio. In Brandenburg, the Supreme Court reviewed a criminal conviction against a Ku Klux Klan leader for “advocat[ing] ... the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism.”

I'm open to his legal argument less open to being convinced Biden and Garland would pursue an unprecedented prosecution of a US president. French does make a good point at the end of the article:

For law enforcement to indict a former president (and perhaps the frontrunner for the 2024 GOP nomination) would set a grave and potentially dangerous precedent. But there is another precedent that is perhaps more grave and more dangerous—deciding that presidents are held to lower standards of criminal behavior than virtually any other American citizen.

https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/the-case-for-prosecuting-donald-trump?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20220629&instance_id=65309&nl=the-morning&regi_id=66290138&segment_id=97102&te=1&user_id=eb3770cd26926d6908b2da6e075b25bf

[iam416]

Brandenburg is a pure First Amendment case. It's about whether the First Amendment shielded certain words from prosecution. The precedent that emerged was that it would not protect words that "incite imminent lawless action." However, it said nothing about what is or isn't an actual crime. So, it's utterly useless in the context of figuring out what you can convict DJT of. USELESS. It's only use is to say that the First Amendment might not/probably wouldn't provided an automatic defense.

I don't know what crimes you can credibly indict DJT on. I really don't. But, I'll reiterate two points: (1) The Hearings are entirely the D narrative; and (2) if they indict they HAVE to convict.

[Da Geezer]

I think you gave a fair summary of the Rosen matter, so thanks, and if I said they had not threatened to resign, then I was wrong.

The reason I asked if Rosen WAS actually fired is that progressives have a thing about thought crimes. It is not impeachable, or a crime, to discuss the potential criminal activity with advisors. In both impeachments, there was a heavy dose of "testimony" about what Trump might do or could do. Less emphasis was placed on what Trump DID do. IMO, the prog attacks on executive privilege are a net negative for the country. So is the potential prosecution of an ex-president for political reasons.

I've never heard an explanation for why Trump is such a trigger for some people. I didn't vote for him in 2016 because he had been a NY liberal. His policies were conservative, though, and they were good for the country. I just don't get the "why" for the utter hatred of the man.

[THE_WIZARD_]

How is the Third Impeachment of DJT going?

[Dr. Strangelove]

I don't think it was a criminal act that Trump wanted to replace the Attorney General of the United States because he wouldn't send a completely false letter about seeing evidence of mass voter fraud. I think it was an act of gross incompetence and personal corruption that demonstrates Trump's total unfitness to govern.

He's an awful human being that cares about no one but himself. I don't even think he cares about his family much. I've said before he's the most deranged President from a psychological standpoint since Nixon. But at least Nixon was smart and was very well informed. Trump combines extreme vanity with utter stupidity and ignorance. Everything about him is a fraud. He was never a good businessman. He inherited an empire from his frugal dad and then Mark Burnett rescued him from the scrapheap of loser d-list celebrities. He's everything false and phoney and theatrical about American politics condensed into one person. A cowardly demagogue that will always play to the crowd.

He's NOT a true conservative but he learned over a decade how to manipulate conservatives and use them to acquire power.

I would happily, happily, prefer some run-of-the mill dickhead conservative like Tom Cotton be President than ever Trump return.

[Da Geezer]

Now doesn't that feel much better?

[THE_WIZARD_]

...and yet he beat Hitlary in 2016.

heh

[iam416]

And, yet, he wouldn't be doing any worse than The Chairman. And I say that essentially endorsing DSL's critique of DJT as a human being. He's entirely loathsome.

HOWEVER, as noted by DSL, his fundamental interest lies in his vanity and his vanity, in almost all cases (except, heh, Jan 6) produces no tangible policy outcome. And way more often than not, the Federal government doing nothing is way better than it doing something. Now, his Administration did accomplish some things in areas where DJT mostly didn't give a flying fuck.

With The Chairman, and especially with the Prog tail wagging that dog, they are still politicians, but the fundamental interest lies in remaking a grossly "inequitable" "racist" "white supremacist" "unfairly based on merit" "sexist" "ETC" society. Those interests DO produce policy outcomes. And, at least IMO, those policy outcomes are horrific.

So, when DSL says he'd happily take Tom Cotton....JFC, yeah....sign me the fuck up. Anyone. ANYONE else that doesn't bring the a 747's worth of god-awful personal cargo will have a good chance of winning in 2024.